South African blade runner Oscar Pistorius earlier today received a five year sentence for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s day last year. The trial itself has garnered worldwide attention due to Pistorius’ celebrity status, and thus a long time before the sentence was handed down there had been several debates on the trial and what would constitute a fair sentence.
Judge Thokozile Masipa no doubt had a hard time reaching this final verdict, in her final notes she said she felt her sentence was ‘fair and just’, but also noted the difficulty in reaching a suitable sentence to appease all parties.
“Sentencing is not a perfect exercise. Sentencing is about achieving the right balance”
The question now is if the sentence really was fair and just? Several experts have noted that Pistorius could be out of jail in as little as ten months, with his lawyer Barry Roux echoing that sentiment himself, as reported by the BBC.
The expectation is that he would spend the rest of the sentence under house arrest.
Several considerations went into the final verdict, all of which were laid sufficiently bare during the sentencing hearing and earlier during the trial itself. There was the guilt wrecking Oscar Pistorius the defence played up, the expectation that his disability wouldn’t hold up well in prison, whilst he was described as ‘a ruined man’.
The prosecution argued that a woman had been killed, and a sentence of community service would send the wrong message. They called for a minimum ten years, also demonstrating that the prisons would be fit to hold Pistorius despite his disabilities.
Between the defence’s call for a sentence of community service and the prosecution’s call for a minimum ten years sentence, one could say the Judge found a compromise between the two camps.
The maximum sentence for the charge Pistorius was convicted of, culpable homicide, carried a maximum sentence of fifteen years. It seems like Thokolize Masipa walked a really tight rope in reaching that verdict.
There is no question Pistorius shot Steenkamp; the question was to establish his motive. The prosecution’s attempts to make it look like a misunderstanding precipitated the shooting did not fly, but inasmuch as Steenkamp died then Oscar is guilty and should serve a sentence. His case was not particularly helped by his weak explanation of how he thought there was an intruder.
So if Pistorius serves his entire five year sentence, a measure of justice would have been served in my opinion. The Judge decided he was not guilty of murder and whilst five years is not fifteen, at least by the time he comes out Steenkamp’s family would have the feeling that there has been a sufficient punishment for the crime that so crudely took away their daughter.
Getting out after ten months would be what we can describe as ‘a travesty of justice’. Every legal system has these procedures which mean people sometimes do not serve their full sentences but in this case looking at the circumstances, a ten month jail sojourn would be a punishment that does not fit the crime.
Oscar Pistorius is a global icon, and in the past has served as an inspiration to many people, especially looking at how his story gradually progressed till he became the first Paralympic Olympian. The whole thing has been an unfortunate episode, but Reeva Steenkamp lost her life and no matter how inadvertent Pistorius’ role was in the incident he must serve a sentence which at least pretends to match the severity of the crime.
Five years does that, ten months not so much.
So where do you stand on this, do you think Pistorius has suffered enough, or the judge’s sentence is a joke? On a scale of fair to Donald Trump, where do you stand?
“Oscar Pistorius will likely only serve ten months for the cold blooded murder of his girlfriend. Another O.J travesty. The judge is a moron!”
-Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 21 2014